The Supreme Court's repugnant fallacies on freedom of information

Here is one of the most repugnant sentences ever written in the history of so-called American jurisprudence:

“The right to access public information is not a ‘fundamental’ privilege … of citizenship.”

Forget about the pretense of a democratic republic. How are citizens supposed to self-govern when information is hidden? Censorship is a tenet of fascism, not democracy.

This abominable statement comes from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Alito spoke for a unanimous court in a Virginia freedom of information case on April 29. The court affirmed the denial of public records access to residents of other states.

Advertisement

This dangerous decision, by and for elites, is a classic example of the government class serving itself. It’s the stuff of which revolutions are made.

The decision reads like the ramblings of a confused, unbalanced person in need of help. For example: “We have said that “the object of the Privileges and Immunities Clause is to ‘strongly … constitute the citizens of the United States as one people, by placing the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned.”

Ah, just kidding: We’re not really a union of states when it comes to public records.

Try to get public records in Virginia and several other states now if you are not a resident of the state holding the public records.

Fugetaboutit, says the U.S. Supreme Court. Forget about the words of Virginia native and founding father James Madison, inscribed by the main entrance at the Library of Congress: “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

Why pay attention to Madison? He only wrote the freaking Constitution.

“Stupid, huh!” said Mitchell Pearlman, the founding executive director and general counsel of the world’s first freedom of information enforcement agency, also known as the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission.

Pearlman said one direct impact of this decision will be felt by citizens who cannot afford a local lawyer or other surrogate to obtain public records. The Virginia law also discriminates against online news operations used by residents to stay informed about government. But, it’s not discriminatory, according to our robed wonders.

The U.S. Supreme Court blew off arguments from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 53 other media organizations. The group cited examples of the crucial role state records play for citizens of all 50 states. From the government “fusion center” spying on citizens who engage in lawful activities such as going to meetings to the impact of the so-called “No Child Left Behind” law on teachers and wide disparities in health care, the brief cited Americans’ historic, common law right of access to government records.

The Supreme Court’s deranged thinking fails to take into account modern commerce, economics and communications. Most First World countries recognize that we are part of a global economy, according to Pearlman, who helped governments in 20 countries develop freedom of information mechanisms and is the author of “Piercing the Veil of Secrecy: Lessons in the Fight for Freedom of Information.”

Unfortunately, given politicians’ perpetual efforts to work behind closed doors, one cannot be optimistic that state legislatures will do anything to remedy the actions of a willfully ignorant and arrogant U.S. Supreme Court.

Andy Thibault is a contributing editor for Journal Register Co.’s Connecticut publications and the author of “Law & Justice In Everyday Life.” He formerly served as a commissioner for Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Commission.